Exploring the Grand Jury - Part 2 of 4

Once I start researching a subject I'm writing about, I often find it difficult to stop. The entire Grand Jury concept is quite perplexing and while I try to put everything into perspective, production slows. This is Part two of a planned four part series on Grand Juries and how they function in the judicial system.

Toward the end of part one, I quoted from "The Abolition of the Grand Jury" by C. E. Chiperfield. The following explains Chiperfield's impression of how justice is affected by secrecy and a lack of accountability in the chambers of the Grand Jury:

"The principal objection which can be urged against the grand jury, as now constituted, is the absolute personal irresponsibility of the individual juror attendant upon the performance of his duties. He is a law unto himself; no power can regulate him and no power can control him. He can be called before no earthly tribunal, except his own conscience, to account for his action. He can pursue an enemy for personal motives of revenge; he can favor a friend or political associate; he can advance and maintain before the jury by argument ideas that he would never father in any other place; he can shirk responsibility by voting to turn the guilty loose, pleading for mercy for the confessed criminal and the next moment cast his vote to indict the innocent, but friendless accused; ignoring in order to do so his oath and every distinction between hearsay and competent evidence. The state's attorney is powerless to protest against or prevent these insane antics upon the juror's part, and the court is as equally unable to prevent the denial of justice."

At the risk of appearing to the readers of this column that I am not as brave as I'd like them to think, I've got to admit the preceding quote scares the hell out of me!

I'm not comfortable with giving unchecked authority to a jury consisting of 12 of my neighbors and their appointed leader. Our current society is horribly lacking in independent thinkers or even people who are capable of thinking rationally with regard to many issues. American's have become a nation of lemmings, eager to follow any fool who appears to have wealth, fame or power, straight off the edge of the cliff disguised as the status quo.

I've known many acquaintances over the years that would be unable to imagine many of the situations faced by people from different social levels than themselves. There are those who have always had enough money to fully pay their bills each month that believe it's a moral lapse if someone's utilities are disconnected for late payment. There are those who have never had to hunt for their dinner and can't see why a gun is important to feed the families of those who have. The affluent that don't see the homeless who are living in filth, the people with cars that blame those without for not leaving New Orleans before Katrina hit, or the socialite whose personal physician writes prescriptions for the same drugs a young addict is selling her body to get. Can 12 of these very different people be just as blind when it comes to justice?

One strong leader advising 12 of my peers, who have minimal knowledge of the law, how to decide if someone should be tried for a crime or not seems unrealistic. Is it possible that the leader could influence the votes of the others? Could an influential member of a community persuade someone on the jury to vote a certain way? Is the average American trained to separate the wheat from the chaff in a witness' testimony, or understand the technicalities and extenuating circumstances that may be involved with a case? Can the average American decipher what is meant by the law and how it applies to a given instance? How difficult would it be to persuade a room of 12 ordinary people to see what isn't there, or to be blind to what is?

I don't know the answers. Nor does anyone else know them. The answers remain hidden by the secrecy that envelops the Grand Jury. If anyone discusses what happens during Grand Jury proceedings it could result in felony charges. If one of the jurors is aware of inappropriate behavior or actions, they could be jailed and fined if they tell anyone of their suspicions. Every three months, the jurors are replaced and the Grand Jury Forman, who understands how things work, has a fresh, naïve panel of jurists to manage.

No one will know why the Grand Jury will issue a no true bill in one case and a true bill in another, because the Grand Jury proceedings are secret and the members answer to no one. I've been told by a Grand Jury Forman, Eddie Baker of Columbia, Tennessee, that the possibility of an outside influence affecting a Grand Jury decision is all but impossible. And even though he has served as his jurisdiction's Grand Jury Foreman for more than five years, I doubt his assertion.

Common sense tells me that corrupting the Grand Jury would be simple, especially by someone of prominence, who has access to information and other influential persons. It seems like it would be glaringly obvious that any procedure that is conducted under a mandated blanket of secrecy would be vulnerable to manipulation and corruption. The appearance of misconduct in itself should be enough to cause the public to demand amendments to current laws.

But, the U.S. Supreme Court comes to the defense of the institution and did offer four reasons why the Grand Jury proceedings are conducted with the secrecy they are.
1. Keeps witnesses from being harassed or otherwise tampered with prior to giving testimony.
2. Witnesses who are reluctant to testify fearing some sort of retribution, feel safer and are more inclined to be thorough and say what's on their minds.
3. Prevents those who might hit the road to escape the jurisdiction if they find out they could be indicted.
4. Protects innocent people that may be implicated but never indicted by the Grand Jury.

Personally, I expect better excuses than that from the nine men and women that are supposedly the finest jurists in the country.

To justify having 12 common citizens whose names were randomly drawn out of a hat, 12 men and women with no more experience in law than most of us, decide whether or not someone should be tried for criminal acts is ludicrous and I think unfair!

If they decide the prosecution has enough evidence to support going to trial and are wrong, the suspect can be found not guilty by a court of law. On the other hand, if those 12 members of the Grand Jury decide there's not enough to justify a trial and they're wrong, a possibly violent or dangerous criminal won't even be charged with a crime and is sent on his way. That puts another criminal back on the streets of America that should be in jail. The next time a no true bill is issued to a man who then beats his wife half to death, rapes someone's daughter or shoots some kid's parents, I'll expect that Grand Jury to explain why! That's only an example of what can happen if they make a mistake!

Imagine the sort of injustice the citizens of Small Town, America would be subject to if there was (heaven forbid) also a certain amount of string pulling going on behind the scenes. What if the son of a prominent and influential community leader had a little too much to drink following the big game and pushed the new, freckle-faced girl in town a little farther than she was ready to go? When she goes before the Grand Jury she's got to convince 12 total strangers that she was assaulted sexually, against her will.

That story may read like this: "Freckles cried when she was asked to repeat what happened. She had no idea as she re-lived the agony of her attack that her attacker's Daddy, Big Buck Rutherford, had hosted the social event of the winter the previous week and everybody who was anybody was there! As luck would have it, the head table was filled with many of the nice people from the Grand Jury and the court house."

The next chapter would continue, "As she left the Grand Jury room that day, Freckles was surprised to see Mr, Rutherford entering from the other side of the lobby. She wiped her eyes, turned and hoped to make it out the door without having to see anyone. She was already outside when Big Buck entered the Grand Jury room… just to see how everyone enjoyed the party the previous week."

The ending will read, "About a week passed before the findings of the Grand Jury were released. Freckles felt as if she was being raped all over again when she was informed they returned a no true bill in the matter. When she and her family tried to learn why, all anyone could tell her is the Grand Jury didn't feel there was enough evidence to support an indictment.

Again they sought an explanation from the prosecutor. He was used to telling people the same story. '"I have no idea what they discussed or how they arrived at their decision,"' the District Attorney said sympathetically. '"The Grand Jury deliberates and votes in secret and there's no real record of why they decided in favor of the accused,"' he added.
Freckles went home, slowly climbed the stairs to her bedroom, latched the door and ate a bottle of pain killers."

Could the preceding book be written in your city? From what this writer has been able to learn through research and interviews, there's not a doubt in my mind that it can happen and that it does happen. Although I've been able to convince myself, it's been really tough to come up with evidence supporting my belief.

Don't get me wrong. As I've researched this subject I've met numerous judges, jurors, attorneys and other prominent people from throughout the social spectrum that seem to be real fair and ethical people. Unfortunately, I'm also pretty sure I've met a couple that aren't.

In Part three of this series, I'll tell you what I've learned regarding a true case that has recently been heard by the Grand Jury. If everything had been conducted legitimately, the numbers of items that just don't make sense wouldn't have shocked and awed me!